This one hit me really close to home, as I frequently ride this particular stretch of road. I hope I am wrong and just over-reacting, but my PERSONAL PERCEPTION is that today's typical motorist is less attentive, more distracted, and more detached from the world around him/her than ever before in history, and this is beginning to scare the cr@p out of me.
SOLANA BEACH A 40-year-old woman riding a bicycle along the coast highway late Friday morning was hit and killed by an SUV whose driver failed to stop.
Authorities said the driver was arrested at his home in Escondido an hour and a half later.
The woman, a Solana Beach resident, was riding in the bike lane along the northbound side of North Highway 101 past Solana Vista Drive just before noon when she was struck by the SUV, whose driver veered into the bike lane, sheriff's Sgt. Randy Webb said.
He clipped her and did not stop, Webb said.
The impact threw the woman against a small tree. Her crushed bicycle ended up on the sidewalk some 70 feet away.
A doctor who was passing by worked on the woman, but she died minutes after the accident.
Webb said the crash was witnessed by a senior volunteer with the sheriff's department who followed the driver of the older red Toyota 4-Runner and called in the license number.
Advertisement
That number led police to a residence on Rock Springs Road in Escondido where the SUV is registered.
Escondido police officers went to the residence and took a man believed to be the driver into custody about 1:30 p.m., sheriff's Lt. Phil Brust said.
Authorities have not identified the suspect. Police planned to transfer him to the custody of the sheriff's department, and were waiting Friday afternoon for a tow truck to impound the SUV, which was found at the suspect's home.
Webb said the woman, whose name has not been released, was well known in the area and frequently went cycling along the highway. He said some of the firefighters summoned to the crash site knew her.
She lived nearby and her husband came to the crash site.
Webb said the woman was wearing a helmet.
Parts of the vehicle were found at the site, including paint chips, a rear view mirror and the lens from the right headlight.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
He may have gone home to have a drink, thus invalidating any field sobriety test. Mind you, this is just speculation, but it does happen.
SteveE
Today's cars are designed to insulate their occupants from the outside world. They've become self-contained habitats whose secondary function is as a mode of transportation.
Bekologist
that is a tragedy. awful. my condolences to the family of the victim.
bigpedaler
my sympathies to the husband, and DEATH RAYS OUT OF MY EYES FOR THIS PUKE WHO CAN'T DRIVE! !
genec
Did he go home to sober up?
Just saw in the evening news that he has been arrested, faces possible charges of Felony Hit and Run, Vehicular Manslaughter, and DUI. Police caught him as he arrived at home.
chemcycle
Today's cars are designed to insulate their occupants from the outside world. They've become self-contained habitats whose secondary function is as a mode of transportation.
So, what does that have to do with this specific instance? Do you have some inside info?
fat_bike_nut
My sympathies to the family of the lady :(
John, I know how you must feel as well. It was, I think last week or so, when a fella on his ten-speed was sent to the hospital in critical condition from a hit-and-run by a JAM. I am assuming the motorist was a JAM because there was very clear indication of a collision, not just from the bike, but from the wreckage of the van that was left behind. This occurred in Newport Beach, where I sometimes rode before.
Dahon.Steve
A bike lane next to a highway?
There really is no infrastructure for the cyclist and we are often stuck having to share lanes on highways with very fast moving vehicles. I wonder how fast those vehicles are going on that highway? I guess it doesn't matter because bike lane or not, the driver was arrested for DUI.
donnamb
I wonder how fast those vehicles are going on that highway? I guess it doesn't matter because bike lane or not, the driver was arrested for DUI.
On Highway 101? I'm guessing pretty darn fast. John? Gene? Is it like the 101 most of us are familiar with up the rest of the Pacific Coast?
John E
A bike lane next to a highway?
There really is no infrastructure for the cyclist and we are often stuck having to share lanes on highways with very fast moving vehicles. I wonder how fast those vehicles are going on that highway? I guess it doesn't matter because bike lane or not, the driver was arrested for DUI.
Thanks, Genec, for the additional information regarding alcohol. I hope they throw the book at the sot.
Steve, this is a standard 1.5 meter / 5 foot wide one-way Class II bike lane adjacent to two standard northbound travel lanes on old Coast Highway 101. The posted speed limit is 45mph, if I recall correctly. This is one of my favorite stretches of road, with perfect sight distances and no driveway cuts or intersections, i.e., a spot where a bike lane would work well, if people could drive.
More significantly, I had to ask myself whether this was a case of driver inattention, in which case HH's arguments for dynamic lane positioning might be considered. However, since the driver was apparently stoned on a legal drug, I doubt riding in the 45mph travel lane instead of the bike lane would have produced a better outcome. I just wish the jerk had veered off the road and hit a streetlight or a wall instead of a bicyclist or pedestrian.
genec
A bike lane next to a highway?
There really is no infrastructure for the cyclist and we are often stuck having to share lanes on highways with very fast moving vehicles. I wonder how fast those vehicles are going on that highway? I guess it doesn't matter because bike lane or not, the driver was arrested for DUI.
Hiway like speeds are quite common here in southern California... 45MPH, 50 and 55MPH are not uncommon for mulitlaned arterials. There are a couple 60 and 65MPH roads locally too with BL. About 2 years ago the 65MPH road was restriped to give a 5 foot buffer between the BL and the other travel lanes after 2 cyclists were killed in a 2 year period. A ghost bike reminds those that use the road of the latter death.
The thing that really tends to irratate me about the 60 and 65MPH roads is that they are both paralled by freeways... in one case less then a 1/4 mile away, in the other case about 50 yards away. So why freeway like speeds when an actual freeway is so close?
Personally I would like to see all urban suface streets reduced to 45MPH. BTW that section of PCH is an urban surface street... intersections, stoplights and businesses along the side. It is called PCH as it was historically the hiway north and south. It has been superceeded as a hiway by the paralled freeway interstate 5. Along some stretches PCH is marked at 55MPH, and in others, 35MPH.
Below is a pic of the 65MPH road with the old BL before the buffer was added. I enlarged the image of the sign so it can be seen better. BTW this looks like a rural hiway as it is is parallel to a Marine air base. To the left is the base, to the right is a runway buffer zone, and a 1/4 mile away is an 8 lane freeway with the same access to the same major roads as this road. This road does service two minor roads that are not available on the freeway.
sbhikes
That part of highway 101 travels through some beach towns where the speed limit slows through towns and increases between them, and there may even be some traffic signals if I recall. I used to live in that area, in Carlsbad.
There's a bike lane on the 101 near Santa Barbara, too, and over there the freeway has some cross traffic, but otherwise it's your standard 65mph two or three-lane in each direction freeway, truck traffic and all.
genec
On Highway 101? I'm guessing pretty darn fast. John? Gene? Is it like the 101 most of us are familiar with up the rest of the Pacific Coast?
Interesting question. I just traveled 101 last year to relive a bike tour I did many years ago. I biked parts and drove parts this time. 101/1 is generally 55MPH, but speed reduces as it enters towns, to typically 35MPH. In the case here near San Diego, there are stretches were it is like one continuous town, the speeds generally hover at 35 and 45MPH, but they do climb to 55MPH where there are no intersections and long open areas.
Now in fact there is a difference between 1 and 101. 1 is PCH. But in some areas the roads merge and become one.
Further north into Oregon, 101 is lined it's entire length with a wide BL and it is well marked. At the CA OR border the difference is striking. Going south into CA The BL may or may not exist, is poorly marked, and the signage varies widely. 101 becomes a limited access freeway, and 1 tightly hugs the coast going through small towns that dot the coast line. It is generally a winding twisty road with poor sight lines but is marked at 55MPH between towns... and the locals drive it that way. There are reduced speed limits as one approaches the towns with 35MPH being the usual speed. The route is quite beautiful. And in many cases it is the only road that a cyclist might use to get between these towns.
SteveE
So, what does that have to do with this specific instance? Do you have some inside info?I was making an observation based on what John E wrote at the beginning of his post:
I hope I am wrong and just over-reacting, but my PERSONAL PERCEPTION is that today's typical motorist is less attentive, more distracted, and more detached from the world around him/her than ever before in history, and this is beginning to scare the cr@p out of me.I share that perception too. Wasn't necessarily about this particular tragedy, since the article said it was an older Toyota 4-Runner involved.
- Steve
John E
I have additional information, courtesy of the News8 website:
perpetrator: Brian Stephen Carnes, age 41, of Escondido, currently where he belongs, i.e., incarcerated
victim: Jeannie Franklin, age 40, of Solana Beach
I never met Ms. Franklin, but I am going to increase this year's MADD donation in her memory.
jschen
That's terrible. :( That stretch of road is often on my home stretch on century rides.
Helmet Head
My condolences to the family and loved ones of Jeannie Franklin.
Helmet Head
Note: This is not a VC topic; it is a safety topic.
I'm starting this thread, regarding the Jeannie Franklin tragedy in order to talk about safety habits, techniques, and methods that might help other cyclists avoid something similar happening to them separately from the main in memorium thread.
From the tragedy in Solana Beach (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=278410) thread:
...
More significantly, I had to ask myself whether this was a case of driver inattention, in which case HH's arguments for dynamic lane positioning might be considered. However, since the driver was apparently stoned on a legal drug, I doubt riding in the 45mph travel lane instead of the bike lane would have produced a better outcome. I just wish the jerk had veered off the road and hit a streetlight or a wall instead of a bicyclist or pedestrian. I ride there quite frequently. In fact, I just got back from riding on that stretch.
I'm not sure if the speed limit is 45. It might even be only 35. Anyway, I never use the bike lane there, except to temporarily move aside to let someone pass.
Since you brought it up, I do not doubt that riding in the traffic lane instead of the bike lane, during the period the motorist was approaching the cyclist, is likely (nothing is for sure) to have produced a better outcome. The reason is that even jerks stoned on legal drugs have to be paying attention to their intended path up ahead, or they would not be able to get one block. Note that this murderer was able to drive all the way home after killing her. So if that were me riding up ahead of him, I would have been in the lane in his path. He probably would have noticed me and changed lanes and/or slowed down. Even if I would have moved aside into the bike lane when he was close enought to overtake me, as I usually do, the odds of him not being aware of my presence, even give his drug induced stupor, I believe are very low.
I have no objective data to support this, because no study has ever been done on it, so far as I know, but my knowledge based on experience gathered empirically strongly supports this. I ride with a mirror, and one of my habits is to observe the behavior of traffic approaching from behind, and as they overtake me, particularly with respect to how they behave in response to my behavior. There is no better method to grab the attention of such a driver, that I know of, than to be riding up ahead in his path. The best method I know of to be ignored by a driver, and to be treated as if I'm not there, is to stay in a bike lane, regardless of whether faster same direction traffic is approaching from behind or not.
Another way for cyclists to avoid falling victim to crashes caused by inadvertent drifts into overlooked cyclists in the bike lane like this is to ride slowly according to pedestrian rules on the sidewalk or adjacent sidepath (which this stretch of PCH has).
Tom Stormcrowe
Comment voluntarily withdrawn by me.
Quoting Helmet Head:
I'm not sure if the speed limit is 45. It might even be only 35. Anyway, I never use the bike lane there, except to temporarily move aside to let someone pass.
Since you brought it up, I do not doubt that riding in the traffic lane instead of the bike lane, during the period the motorist was approaching the cyclist, is likely (nothing is for sure) to have produced a better outcome. The reason is that even jerks stoned on legal drugs have to be paying attention to their intended path up ahead, or they would not be able to get one block. Note that this murderer was able to drive all the way home after killing her. So if that were me riding up ahead of him, I would have been in the lane in his path. He probably would have noticed me and changed lanes and/or slowed down. Even if I would have moved aside into the bike lane when he was close enought to overtake me, as I usually do, the odds of him not being aware of my presence, even give his drug induced stupor, I believe are very low.
bigpedaler
from the standpoint of safety:
we cyclists need to make sure our kids, our loved ones, our friends all know the proper way to ride, what the rules of the road are -- don't address it from the contentious issue of vc/ac/no c -- and whenever possible, make sure we ride w/ a buddy until the skill & experience are there. this probably wouldn't have made a difference in THIS instance, but will go a long way to keep it from happening too many more times.
we as members of our communities need to make noise about driver education -- not the class some of us took in high school years -- as an ongoing thing. it's become a convenience, in a society obsessed with convenience, to receive new plates/registration in the mail or through some automated system. this needs to stop, simply for the sake of accountability -- before you can receive your new registration, answer some skill-related and traffic law questions CORRECTLY. (probably won't happen, though)
only when the knowledge is hammered home on both sides, and responsibility is put where it belongs, will this type of thing go away to ANY degree. some people talk about gov't interference in their lives and such -- well, gov't has one duty, and that is to regulate how we deal w/ each other, for the simple purpose of ensuring that we do not screw each other over. they're supposed to be referees, not nannies or ubermothers.
(can we say total overhaul of our culture? yeah -- THERE'S a pipe dream!)
John E
I also cycled that stretch of road this morning, southbound around 0915 and northbound around 1045.
Thank you for the thread, HH. I wish everyone could put aside the politics and bickering and focus on what (if anything) we can do to reduce our chances of being struck by motor vehicles. You offer one potential, partial solution with your "in your face" (literally) cycling style, which, as you observe, probably requires the active and frequent use of a rearview mirror. I do believe that cycling closer to the center of the roadway could indeed enhance one's noticeability and reduce one's "ignorability" to motorists. Whatever folks think of bike lanes or VC, they need to consider the difference between central and peripheral visual acuity and the brain's response to central versus side images.
This year, we have lost two cyclists to right-drift collisions on northbound Pacific Coast Highway, one in Carlsbad, the other in Solana Beach.
It's pretty terrifying that, following the incident, this inebriated jerk drove another 15 to 25 miles to Escondido (on 2-lane 55mph Del Dios Highway??!!).
John E
Additional relevant data:
"According to sheriff's investigators, Jeannie Halett, 40, was hit at about 11:45 a.m. on Friday by an SUV on Highway 101 north just past Solana Vista Drive. Investigators said the woman was riding alone in a bike lane and was wearing proper equipment. They also said she was riding southbound in the northbound lanes of Highway 101."
Helmet Head
Additional relevant data:
"According to sheriff's investigators, Jeannie Halett, 40, was hit at about 11:45 a.m. on Friday by an SUV on Highway 101 north just past Solana Vista Drive. Investigators said the woman was riding alone in a bike lane and was wearing proper equipment. They also said she was riding southbound in the northbound lanes of Highway 101."
Whoa! I hadn't noticed that. That's interesting, because much of the southbound side does not have a bike lane (lot's of onstreet parking and business entrances/exits). The northbound side is adjacent to a RR right of way, so it is effectively intersectionless. But I'm still surprised someone like that would choose going opposite traffic in the bike lane over using the sidepath 6 feet away.
Helmet Head
This is from my friend Dan.
To all,
I know of a number of collisions of this type that have occurred over the
last two decades in LA County, usually on PCH with a motorist drifting onto
a shoulder instead of a bike lane. Either way, these collisions are NOT
overtaking collisions of the "failed to avoid cyclist in the same lane"
variety, they are drift out of one's lane and into the shoulder/bike lane.
I know of very few collisions where a motorist struck a cyclist directly in
front in daylight conditions (there have been a few at night with the
cyclist having no lights - so these are not motorist caused). Yet, many
people jump to the absurd conclusion, that if cyclists ride even further
left, say in the same lane with the motorist (where they can be detected
earlier), they will surely be in an even worse situation than on the
shoulder, so let's build a sidepath. It never occurs to them that motorists
very rarely run down cyclists right in front of them, but drift with a
higher frequency than they should, and usually to the right. My personal
observation is that people who are dealing with kind or using a cell phone,
do tend to allow themselves to drift rightward onto shoulders because they
perceive that there aren't any hazards there compared to a leftward drift in
to an adjacent lane. I'm inclined to agree with [HH] that bike lanes and
shoulders tend to foster this behavior. Most of the collisions of this
drift type in LA County have occurred on open stretches of highway, and not
so much in urban settings.
supersport
Whoa! I hadn't noticed that. That's interesting, because much of the southbound side does not have a bike lane (lot's of onstreet parking and business entrances/exits). The northbound side is adjacent to a RR right of way, so it is effectively intersectionless. But I'm still surprised someone like that would choose going opposite traffic in the bike lane over using the sidepath 6 feet away.
That's what I thought too.
I was riding this exact stretch of road on that day. I rode over the exact spot absolutely no more than a 1/2 hour before the accident, perhaps less, maybe minutes. I keep thinking that the perp may have passed me from behind on his way home, since that's the way to Escondido. On my return trip about 2pm they were still investigaging and had the lane closed off.
The bike lane is narrow in that area but I don't usually feel like it's dangerous since it's heavily used and I feel like motorists will be used to cyclists there. I guess I kid myself. Anyway, there's no accounting for drunks. Days I'm feeling slow I ride on the side path which is separated from the road by shrubs, trees, benches, etc. In the section where the accident happened there is a bike lane both directions. But, Helmet Head is right that part of the southbound route in Solana Beach doesn't have a bike lane. There is a section without a bike lane in either direction further north in the Leucadia (Encinitas) area. That part is pretty bad.
There's just no way to know what went through the rider and the driver's minds. It's just a tradgedy all the way around.
Jim
sbhikes
I admit I never rode a bike through there, and I haven't lived there since 1989, but what I recall is the road was concrete with asphalt shoulders. I personally find the crack between the two materials often can be unpleasant to cross. Anyway, given what I remember it being like, I would stick to the shoulder the entire time, only leaving the shoulder when I stopped for coffee or whatever at my destination. I can't see any reason to leave the shoulder on a road like this. There's no advantage when faster traffic isn't there and no advantage when it is. And the towns seemed quite sleepy. Who knows how it is now, though.
For what it's worth, I used to ride my motorcycle along there a lot. It's kinda nippy for motorcycling, but it was a pretty drive back then, especially near that field where they grew the bulbs. The riot of color was just amazing. I bet it's all paved over now.
lawkd
I admit I never rode a bike through there, and I haven't lived there since 1989, but what I recall is the road was concrete with asphalt shoulders. I personally find the crack between the two materials often can be unpleasant to cross.
No, it's smooth asphalt all the way across. Here's a link with a photo of the site:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20070316-1441-bn16cyclist.html
There are always so many cyclists there, it doesn't make sense that she would have been going south in that northbound bike lane. The Rail Trail is there on the right, you can see it in the photo too. That has foot and bike traffic in both directions, so again it doesn't make sense that an experienced local cyclist would be going south in that bike lane. Makes me really wonder about the witness' accuracy.
kalliergo
No, it's smooth asphalt all the way across. Here's a link with a photo of the site
How wide is the bike lane, lawkd?
lawkd
How wide is the bike lane, lawkd?
I'd say it's about 4 feet from the stripe to the curb, maybe a bit more. Not real wide, maybe because the Rail Trail runs along there too.
lawkd
Another article, which states specifically that she was *northbound* in the northbound bike lane, and was struck from behind. Also a good video clip at this link.
http://www.10news.com/news/11273056/detail.html
John E
Another article, which states specifically that she was *northbound* in the northbound bike lane, and was struck from behind. Also a good video clip at this link.
http://www.10news.com/news/11273056/detail.html
Thanks for the clarification. That makes ALOT more sense to me.
John E
How wide is the bike lane, lawkd?
The bike lane is precisely regulation 1.5m / 59" wide, INCLUDING the concrete gutter. (I measured it during construction, after one of our SDCBC members complained that they had narrowed the road objectionably when they built the sidepath.) The California road design manual recommends, but does not mandate, an additional 30cm/12" of width for heavily-used bike lanes, such as this one.
John E
This is from my friend Dan.
HH, as you well know, I greatly respect Dan, generally concur with him, but sometimes debate with him. I wonder about the statistics regarding right-drift versus direct strike-from-behind-in-the-travel-lane scenarios simply because the vast majority of bicyclists ride the shoulder on PCH and other fast prime arterials. If cyclists jointly log 99% of their miles in the shoulder (and presumably 100% for slower cyclists), can we definitely conclude that it is safer to take the lane than to stay in the bike lane?
Bekologist
a tragedy indeed. I think cyclists are NOT safer choosing a traffic lane, versus bike lanes that are safe and acceptable for use, along roads with 45+ mph traffic.
Placing oneself directly in front of every single group of cars rolling down a high speed road exponentially increases the chance of error from drivers or bicyclist, especially on high speed roads-(not so much on 25 MPH streets.)
quoting helmet head- "There is no better method to grab the attention of such a driver, that I know of, than to be riding up ahead in his path." mr head is marginalizing the value of CONSPICUITY regardless of road position, and confused in his belief 'blocking' position equals 'safe' road position.
his conclusion of 'no better methods' is faulty. his 'best method' places a cyclist in a more vulnerable position - directly in front of every driver or group of drivers.
More grounded strategies for safety along stretches of well- accomodated roadway are:
1) increase conspicuity via the use of daylight visible blinkies, high vis clothing, a slow-moving vehicle triangle, or any combination.
2) use bike lane when safe and reasonable; leave lane when conditions dictate.
the specious analysis that bicyclists are better off not using well provided acomodations is unproven and even potentially dangerous, due to driver backlash.
I experienced several angry drivers on a 50 mile ride today - along higher speed arterial roads that were NOT bike laned- because my lane position as sweep/block for a group of a half dozen of us prompted angry, agressive driver behavior.
speculation on the accident: the rider WAS using the techniques or a variation described by the original poster, and the cyclist was hit in drunken anger, not distraction.
My condolences to the family of the victim, my apologies for my speculation as to the cause of the accident. RIP.
CTAC
HH - all your threads can be summarized as "use a mirror, stupid!". Whatever you are suggesting cannot be done without a mirror. I ride with a mirror myself, but not everyone can get used to it. Riding in the traffic lane in a dense fast-moving traffic the way you are suggesting without one is a pretty stupid idea. You can try it yourself, we'll always remember you.
chemcycle
I was making an observation based on what John E wrote at the beginning of his post:
My apologies. Although, as it turns out, neither statement is really reflective of this specific case.
chemcycle
It never occurs to them that motorists very rarely run down cyclists right in front of them
It may not happen so often because most people don't travel in the same lane as cars (as John E has stated). Just a thought.
Also, cars do rear end each other (more of a problem near signals). Being in the lane of traffic doesn't automatically make you safer.
Obviously, more research into driver behavior needs to be done.
joejack951
HH - all your threads can be summarized as "use a mirror, stupid!". Whatever you are suggesting cannot be done without a mirror. I ride with a mirror myself, but not everyone can get used to it. Riding in the traffic lane in a dense fast-moving traffic the way you are suggesting without one is a pretty stupid idea. You can try it yourself, we'll always remember you.
I've never met anyone who cannot get used to using mirrors on a car. Why can't people get used to it on a bike? Do you think that "riding in the [bike] lane in a dense fast-moving traffic the way [HH is] suggesting without [a mirror] is a pretty stupid idea?" If not, why not?
It may not happen so often because most people don't travel in the same lane as cars (as John E has stated). Just a thought.
The majority of the favorite roads for cyclists in my area are narrow country roads without shoulders/bike lanes. I have never heard of a cyclist being hit from behind while cycling on these roads. There are some very rare cases posted here of such an event happening but since I've been following these forums, I've heard of far more inadvertent drift collisions than hit from behind on narrow road collisions.
I-Like-To-Bike
It may not happen so often because most people don't travel in the same lane as cars (as John E has stated). Just a thought.
Exactly! This HH/Dan "method" of determining risk is of little to no value; i.e. counting the total number of collisions occuring in various positions of the road while disregarding the percentage of riders who actually ride in those positions. Using the same method, one could easily deduce that cycling in the inside traffic lane, opposing traffic, at night is the safest method for travel on limited access/high speed highways since there probably are zero recorded accidents or injuries for cyclists using that method.
wagathon
I was in San Diego yesterday and learned of this. I'm not sure exactly where on the coast route this took place. Nothing can be said that excuses the driver.
I've riden that route 100s and 100s of times. It is safe except all along here, but no one is safe from the kind of person that was behind the wheel of that truck: 41 and driving drunk before noon, sticking to the coast to avoid the police. We have the same problem in So. Orange county coastal area with deaths recently between Dana Pt. and San Clemente.
Helmet Head
It may not happen so often because most people don't travel in the same lane as cars (as John E has stated). Just a thought. There are thousands and thousands of miles of roadway in the U.S. where the outside lane is too narrow to be safely shared, there is no shoulder, and upon which thousands of cyclists ride every day in a manner that requires faster same direction drivers to notice them, and adjust prior to overtaking them, in order to not hit them. Yet the incidence of this type of collision is never-the-less extremely rare.
Riding in the traffic lane in a dense fast-moving traffic the way you are suggesting without [a mirror] is a pretty stupid idea. You can try it yourself, we'll always remember you. Again, this is exactly what the vast majority of cyclists do -- because they have no choice and have no mirror -- on roads with narrow outside lanes.
Edit: See the OP of this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=278113) for video clip examples of how well this works.
Placing oneself directly in front of every single group of cars rolling down a high speed road exponentially increases the chance of error from drivers or bicyclist, especially on high speed roads-(not so much on 25 MPH streets.)
Poppycock! See the OP of this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=278113) for video clip examples of how well this works on 6-lane posted-45-mph arterials (while you're there, don't forget to vote for your favorite clip!)
Also, cars do rear end each other (more of a problem near signals). Being in the lane of traffic doesn't automatically make you safer. Motorcyclists are just as prone to being rear ended as are cars, and just as physically vulnerable as are bicyclists, yet this reality doesn't scare motorcyclists into scurrying into "out-of-the-way space" at every intersection the way bicyclists tend to do. I wonder why?
Obviously, more research into driver behavior needs to be done. I certainly agree with that. In the mean time each of us has to decide where we think is safer despite the lack of research to definiteively tells us one way or the other. I just explain the reasons that lead me to the way that I ride, and why the reasons to ride less assertively (see above for typical examples) make no sense to me.
I-Like-To-Bike
There are thousands and thousands of miles of roadway in the U.S. where the outside lane is too narrow to be safely shared, there is no shoulder, and upon which thousands of cyclists ride every day.
If you say so. I could say there are millions of cyclists riding every day in some other manner. Could be. But I wouldn't draw any conclusions about safety of one method over the other by making a comparison of total number of accidents per method without any idea of the accuracy of such guesswork.
Bekologist
i disagree with HH's analysis.
a bike lane places a cyclist out of a drivers' direct path.
swerving in and out of the traffic lanes when a safe and acceptable bikelane is available exponentially increases the chance of error by either cyclist, equipment or driver. mr. head's 'blocking' does NOT equate with 'safest'.
sure, mr. head, you think your method is the best, and others do not.
Can this thread get moved to VC yet?
its going down the "one poster knows best" drain......
Helmet Head
There are thousands and thousands of miles of roadway in the U.S. where the outside lane is too narrow to be safely shared, there is no shoulder, and upon which thousands of cyclists ride every day.If you say so.
I could say there are millions of cyclists riding every day in some other manner. And I wouldn't dispute it. It's irrelevant to my point: which is that there are also thousands of cyclists riding on roadways with narrow outside lanes and no shoulders (think Highway 1 down the entire 1,000 mile length of California, as just one example, except for the relatively short urban stretches where there are shoulders or bike lanes) every day, and aren't getting killed doing it (certainly no more than those riding in shoulders or bike lanes, per the tragedy in the OP).
Could be. But I wouldn't draw any conclusions about safety of one method over the other by making a comparison of total number of accidents per method without any idea of the accuracy of such guesswork. For my main point, I'm not comparing. I'm saying the existence of such roads where being "in the way" is the only way to ride these roads, combined with the obvious usage of these roads by cyclists every day, and the practically unheard of collision on such a road, is very convincing evidence in and of itself that a cyclist riding up ahead in a motorist's path is extremely unlikely to be hit by that motorist. `
I also consider the much higher number of cyclists who are killed on roads with shoulder and bike lanes -- where those cyclists were riding in the shoulder or bike lane, as in the tragedy of this thread.
The combination of those two observations does certainly cause me to compare. I think the evidence is quite strong that cyclists riding in shoulders and/or bike lanes are more likely to be drifted into that are cyclists riding in the path of a motorist are likely to be hit from behind.
I-Like-To-Bike
I think the evidence is quite strong that cyclists riding in shoulders and/or bike lanes are more likely to be drifted into that are cyclists riding in the path of a motorist are likely to be hit from behind.
Fine, you think "the evidence is quite strong" when there is none. Perfect!!:rolleyes:
Bekologist
my heartfelt condolences to the family of the victim. It's Likely NONE of us would have been any safer in front of this drunk driver, despite the protestations and prolesytizing by one of this forums' members.
Helmet Head
i disagree with HH's analysis.
a bike lane places a cyclist out of a drivers' direct path.
Disagree? That the bike lane places a cyclist out of a drivers' direct path is a fundamental point in my analysis: being out of the driver's direct path is what makes the cyclist's presence relatively irrelevant to the driver. I, for one, would rather be relevant, even if that means being in the driver's direct path 30+ seconds before he overtakes me.
swerving in and out of the traffic lanes when a safe and acceptable bikelane is available exponentially increases the chance of error by either cyclist, equipment or driver. mr. head's 'blocking' does NOT equate with 'safest'.
I don't know if serving back and forth between the traffic lane and bike lane would be more or less safe, but it's moot, because that's not what I'm talking about.
sure, mr. head, you think your method is the best, and others do not.
Can this thread get moved to VC yet?
its going in the "one poster knows best" drain......
This technique is not about VC per se. I'm not sure why this discussion thread got merged with the original thread. I thought we had consensus on this forum that such a separation was a good thing.
Helmet Head
I think the evidence is quite strong that cyclists riding in shoulders and/or bike lanes are more likely to be drifted into that are cyclists riding in the path of a motorist are likely to be hit from behind.
Fine, you think "the evidence is quite strong" when there is none. Perfect!!:rolleyes:
No evidence? What do you call this:
The existence of thousands of miles of roads in the U.S. where being "in the way" is the only way to ride these roads, combined with the obvious usage of these roads by cyclists every day, and the practically unheard of collision on such a road.
The relatively high number of cyclists who are killed on roads with shoulders and bike lanes -- where those cyclists were riding in the shoulder or bike lane, as in the tragedy of this thread.